Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj on 19 September, 2024
DLWT020124772018
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-06, DISTRICT-WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. SWATI BHARDWAJ, DJS
State Vs. Suraj
FIR No. 299/17
PS - Mundka
Under section 279/337/420/468/471 IPC
& Under Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID No. : 6781/18
2) The date of commission of offence : 06.11.2017 and 11.11.2017
3) The name of the complainant : Baljeet Singh
4) The name & parentage of accused : (i) Suraj
S/o Kailash Prasad
R/o Village
Balwachak, PS
Jagdishpur,
Bhagalpur, Bihar
(ii) Anshu Kumar
S/o Ramdhari
R/o A-74, Vikas Vihar,
Kirari Suleman Nagar,
Nithari, Sultanpuri, C-
Block, Delhi.
5) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Pravesh Kumar Vyas
6) Offence involved : Under sections
279/337/420/468/471 IPC
& Under Sections 3/181,
5/180, 146/196 MV Act
7) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
8) Final order : Acquittal
9) Judgment reserved on : 23.08.2024
10) Judgment announced on : 19.09.2024
State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.1 of 13
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 06.11.2017 at about 8:45 pm at near Bharat Gas Agency, Bakkarwala road Mundka within the jurisdiction of P.S. Mundka, accused Suraj was found driving tempo bearing registration No. DL1LL4001 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 279 IPC.
2. Secondly, on the above said date, time and place while driving said vehicle as mentioned above, accused Suraj hit against Motorcycle no DL4SBN7525 and caused simple injury to Baljeet Singh and thereby he also committed an offence punishable under section 337 IPC.
3. It is further the allegation of the prosecution that on 11.11.2017, both the accused Suraj and Anshu produced one forged copy of insurance of IFFCO-TOKIO for vehicle no. DL1LL4001 before the police, knowing that the same is forged, for purpose of cheating the police and thereby they both committed offences punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC.
4. Furthermore that on 06.11.2017, the accused Suraj was found driving vehicle no. DL1LL4001 without any license and accused Anshu had given the said vehicle to accused Suraj for driving without any license and insurance and thereby they committed offences punishable under section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed. The accused persons State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.2 of 13 were summoned. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was made by providing copy of the charge-sheet and annexed documents to the accused persons.
6. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC was framed against accused Suraj and charge for offences punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC and under section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of MV Act was framed against both the accused Suraj and Anshu.
7. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses.
8. PW-1 W/HC Urmila Devi deposed that on 10.11.2017 at about 1:35 pm HC Ajit produced one rukka, Ex. PW1/A. On the basis of rukka, PW-1 registered the present FIR and handed-over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Naveen for handing- over to HC Ramesh. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/B (OSR). Certificate u/s 65B, Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/C.
9. PW-2 Baljeet Singh deposed that in the month of November 2017 at about 9 PM, he was going to Bakkarwala from Nangloi on motorcycle no. DL4S BN 7525. When he reached in front of Bharat Gas Agency, Mundka, he saw one Champion Tempo, Green coloured, stationed on the right side of the road. When he reached near the tempo, the driver of the tempo suddenly turned it towards his side due to which PW2 fell on the road and sustained injuries. Someone made a call at 100 number. PCR van came and took PW-1 to SGM Hospital. PW-2 remained in the hospital for about 04 hours. Police officials came State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.3 of 13 to the hospital that day, but his statement was not recorded. On the next day, his statement Ex. PW-2/A was recorded by the police at his home. Police officials prepared site plan Ex. PW2/B. Motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Accused Suraj was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/D and his personal search was made vide Ex. PW2/E. PW-2 correctly identified the accused as the driver of the tempo and the tempo no. DL1LL4001 and his motorcycle DL4SBN7525 through photographs Ex. P1 and P-2 (colly).
10. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW2 stated that the tempo had turned towards left side. His son Parveen Kumar @ Pammi had noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle which was later on given to the IO. Next day, PW-2 came to know the name of driver as Suraj. The name of driver was disclosed to him by the owner of the vehicle namely Anshu. PW-2 saw the accused Suraj for the first time at the time of accident at the spot and second time in Tis Hazari court. PW-2 did not visit PS regarding the present case or on 11.11.2017. PW2 admitted his signatures at point A on arrest memo of Suraj i.e. Ex. PW2/D and stated that his signatures were obtained at point A at his house after 2-3 days of the accident. Ex. PW2/D was completely filled when PW-2 signed it. Ex. PW2/A was written by HC Ajeet in the presence of PW-2. PW-2 signed it after going through its contents. FIR was registered on 10.11.2017 as settlement talks were going on with the owner of the vehicle Anshu. During this period, PW-2 never met the driver Suraj. PW-2 was wearing helmet at the time of accident. He denied that no accident was caused with the offending vehicle or State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.4 of 13 by the accused Suraj or a false case has been registered against the accused persons to extract money.
11. PW-3 HC Naveen deposed that on 11.11.2017, one person namely Ashu came at the PS alongwith Suraj and stated that he was driving the vehicle on the day of incident. He produced the said vehicle and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. RC of the vehicle, fitness certificate and insurance of the vehicle were produced and same were produced vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. Accused Suraj was arrested vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D and searched vide memo Ex. PW2/E. PW-3 correctly identified the accused Anshu and Suraj and the offending tempo through photographs, Ex.P1 (colly.).
12. PW-4 SI Krishan deposed that on 06.11.2017 at about 9.00 p.m, he received a PCR call from control room. He made the DD entry 34A i.e. Ex.PW4/A upon the information received. Thereafter he handed-over same to the HC Ajeet.
13. PW-5 Dr. Dharmender Kumar deposed that on 06.11.2017 he was on duty in the SGM hospital. At 9:35 p.m., he treated a patient namely Baljeet and made a MLC report Ex. PW5/1. The patient namely Baljeet had suffered simple injury.
14. PW-6 ASI Ajeet Singh deposed that on 06.11.2017, he received DD entry no. 34A regarding an accident. He alongwith HC Narender went to the place of accident i.e. place in front of Bharat Gas Agency, Bakkarwala Road, Mundka. There he found one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4SBN 7525 in accidental condition. PW-6 came to know about the shifting of State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.5 of 13 injured in the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by PCR Officials. PW-6 had deputed HC Narender at the spot and he himself went to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. There he had found that injured Baljeet was admitted against his MLC. Injured Baljeet had refused to give his statement. He had informed PW-6 that he will give his statement after consulting his family members. PW-6 returned to the spot where HC Narender informed him that son of Baljeet had taken out the motorcycle from the spot. On 08.11.2017, he had visited the house of Baljeet for recording his statement, however, he further refused to give the same. On 10.11.2017, when PW-6 was present in the PS, injured Baljeet came there and his statement was recorded. PW-6 had endorsed the same vide rukka which is Ex.PW6/A. He prepared site plan at instance of complainant. PW-6 came to know about the name of owner of offending vehicle as Anshu.
15. PW6 further deposed that on 11.11.2017, in pursuance of notice u/s 133 MV Act i.e. Ex. PW6/B, accused Anshu had produced the driver of offending vehicle namely Suraj in the PS. PW6 seized the offending vehicle, its RC, fitness certificate and insurance. He arrested accused Suraj, conducted his personal search, seized the victim motorcycle, got conducted mechanical inspection of both vehicles and collected their respective mechanical inspection report. During the verification of documents of offending vehicle, it was revealed that insurance papers submitted by owner Anshu are fake. Thereafter, further investigation was marked to ASI Dinesh. PW-6 identified the signature of ASI Dinesh at point A on arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Anshu Kumar which are Ex.PW6/C and State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.6 of 13 Ex.PW6/D. PW-6 correctly identified both the accused and both the vehicles through photographs already Ex.P1 and Ex. P2 (Colly).
16. During his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-6 deposed officials of IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company had not issued any statement/document regarding the verification of insurance policy in question but they had made his remark/endorsement on the insurance policy regarding its verification. He admitted that no statement of officials of insurance company is available on record and they are not cited in the list of prosecution witnesses. He denied that the insurance policy in question is a valid document that is why he had failed to examine the officials of insurance company. No public witness or residence of locality was found as the eye witness of the accident. He admitted that offending vehicle was not found at the spot at the time of his visit. He denied that no alleged accident was occurred by alleged offending vehicle or that the offending vehicle was not being driven at the place of accident at the relevant time or that no alleged accident was occurred by accused Suraj or that insurance policy submitted by accused Anshu is not a forged document.
17. Joint statement of accused persons was recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused admitted the genuineness of Mechanical Inspection Report of the victim vehicle which is Ex. X1, Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle which is Ex. X2, MLC No. 19187 dated 06.11.2017 as Ex. X3. The examination of corresponding witnesses to the said document was, therefore, dispensed with.
State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.7 of 13
18. After prosecution evidence was concluded, statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused persons refuted all the incriminating circumstances and evidence put to them and pleaded innocence.
19. Both the accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in their defense and the same was closed.
20. Final arguments were led on behalf of both the parties. Written Submissions were also filed on behalf of the accused persons.
21. Rival submissions have been considered and record of case has been carefully perused.
22. To bring home the guilt to the accused Suraj for offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC, the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that:
i. That the accident took place on 06.11.2013 at about 09:00 PM near Bharat Gas Agency, Mundka, Delhi.
ii. That the accident took place due driving of green Mahindra tempo beraing no. DL1LL4001 in a rash and negligent manner.
iii. That the accused Suraj was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
iv. That the accident caused simple injury to the victim Baljeet, such that the rash and negligent driving of the accused was the direct cause of the injuries.
State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.8 of 13
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision cited as S.N. Hussain v. State of A.P., (1972) 3 SCC 18 held that criminal 'negligence' is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
24. In its decision cited as Mrs. Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama; AIR 1975 SC 1324, the Hon'ble Apex court while discussing the factors to be considered while adjudicating upon the "rashness or negligence" has observed the following:
"...6. The main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed but the width of the road, the density of the traffic and the attempt, as in this case, to overtake the other vehicles resulting in going to the wrong side of the road and being responsible for the accident. Even if the accident took place in the twinkling of an eye it is not difficult for an eyewitness to notice a car overtaking other vehicles and going to the wrong side of the road and hitting a vehicle travelling on that side of the road..."
25. Thus, to succeed, the prosecution ought to prove, inter alia, that the accused was driving the vehicle in a manner which was rash or negligent and that too beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts of the present case, this could only be proved by the eyewitness. The sole eyewitness PW2 Baljeet has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly turned the same to the left side due to which he fell but PW2 has not elucidated what State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.9 of 13 was rash or negligent about the way the vehicle was being driven by the accused. What was the speed of the tempo, whether any indication was given before turning or not has not been disclosed by the witness.
26. This court is of the considered view that the statement of PW2 by itself is not sufficient to impute "rashness or negligence"
to the manner of driving or to lead the court to believe that the accused was driving the offending vehicle without any proper care and precaution to guard against injury.
27. Further, PW2 has stated that the number of the offending tempo was noted by his son Praveen, the said son has not been examined as a witness. As per PW6, the accused Suraj was not apprehended from the spot on 06.11.2017 but on 11.11.2017 in the PS. PW2 has even conceded that he signed the arrest memo of Suraj at his home i.e. he did not actually see the accused being arrested. There is also delay in registration of the FIR as the accident allegedly took place on 06.11.2017 and as per the IO the complainant refused to give any statement that day but only reported on 10.11.2017. Complainant has alleged that he did not report earlier as settlement talks were going on but it is not the conduct of a prudent person. Such circumstances cast a further shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution.
28. In view of the above, this court finds that the case of prosecution qua allegation of offences punishable under section 279/338 IPC has failed to stand on its own legs.
29. Next, the court shall assess the allegations of offences of cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and use of forged State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.10 of 13 document as genuine punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC levelled against the accused persons.
30. Apropos the same, the prosecution has not led any convincing evidence for the court to believe that the alleged insurance document furnished by the accused persons to PW6 IO HC Ajeet were forged or fabricated. PW6 has merely deposed that during verification the insurance documents were found to be fake, however, which document is stated to be fake was never exhibited by the said witness or any other prosecution witness. Further, no official was ever examined by the prosecution from the insurance company concerned i.e. IFFCO Tokio Insurance company who could have proved whether the alleged policy document was genuine or forged. No reason for the said omission or withholding such a material witness and the document has been disclosed by the prosecution either.
31. Thus, this court is of the considered view that there no material on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed forgery of the insurance documents or used forged documents as genuine to establish commission of offences punishable under section 468/471 IPC. Furthermore, there is not even an allegation that the police officials delivered any valuable security to any person consequential to any dishonest inducement of the accused persons, thus, one of the basic ingredients of offence under section 420 IPC is completely lacking. Even considering the lesser offence punishable under section 417 IPC, the same is also not made out. This is because the 'deception' or 'fraudulent inducement' alleged against the accused persons is handing-over State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.11 of 13 a fake insurance document to the IO and inducing the IO to accept it as genuine, however, without there being any proof on record that the insurance document was fake/forged, the element of deceiving/ fraudulent inducement is found to be lacking.
32. Coming to the allegations of offences punishable under sections 3/181 and under section 5/180 MV Act, none of the prosecution witnesses, not even the IO PW6 has ever deposed that why accused Suraj is alleged to have been driving the offending tempo on 06.11.2017 without having a valid driving license. None of the witnesses have deposed if they ever asked or issued any notice to the accused Suraj to produce the licence and he refused the same. Thus, there is no material available on record for the court to believe that accused Suraj was driving the offending tempo on 06.11.2017 without having a valid driving license. Accordingly, the allegations of offence punishable under sections 3/181 MV Act against accused Suraj and that of offence punishable under section 5/180 against accused Anshu are not proved.
33. Lastly, regarding the allegation of offence punishable under section 146/196 MV Act, PW6 IO HC Ajeet and PW3 HC Naveen have deposed that they had seized the insurance policy of the offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW3/D. The IO has gone on to allege that the insurance document was fake and the offending vehicle was not insured, however, as held in foregoing paragraphs, the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Thus, commission of offence under section146/196 MV Act has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.12 of 13
34. Consequent to the above discussion and analysis, the accused Suraj is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 279/338/420/468/471 IPC & under section 3/181 MV Act and accused Anshu is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC & under section 5/180 and 146/196 MV Act.
Digitally signed by SWATI SWATI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.09.19 15:44:10 +0530 Pronounced in the open (SWATI BHARDWAJ) Court on 19.09.2024 JMFC-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi This judgment contains 13 signed pages.
State vs. Suraj & Anr. FIR No. 299/13 Page No.13 of 13